The one thing that you would hold back from God,
Is the one thing you must become willing to place upon the altar.
The One Thing You Hold Back
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:5, 7-9, 15-19, 25, 27-28
5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat.
9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
25 And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
27 And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.
28 And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp.
Yesterday we heard how Aaron would give a sin offering for himself, and sprinkle its blood upon the mercy seat, making atonement for himself, and now we hear how he would then do the same for the congregration. However, there was a most interesting wrinkle to this particular sacrifice. Instead of bringing one goat for the sin offering, two were presented. One of them was to be slain and used for the sacrifice, the other was to be set free, though banished from the community. Which goat would serve in which function came down to a game of chance, “casting lots,” leaving the outcome in the hands of God.
For the goat that was selected to be the sacrifice, Aaron followed the same procedure for his personal sin offering, killing the goat and using its blood to sprinkle the mercy seat in the most holy place of the tabernacle. We can presume that he had to enter the holy place under the same cover of incense smoke that we heard of for his personal sin offering. After the blood of both sin offerings had been sprinkled around the mercy seat, then he would use more of their blood upon the sacrificial altar.
Then the fat of the sin offerings was burned upon the altar. It does not say that the kidneys were also burned, but likely they were, consistent with the usual procedure for sin offerings. Also consistent with the usual sin offering procedure was that the rest of the animals’ remains were carried out of the camp and burned.
Aaron had now atoned for the sins of himself and all the people, but what about that goat who was to be released into the wild? We will hear about that tomorrow.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:3-4, 6, 11-14
3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
11 And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:
12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil:
13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:
14 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
We here continue the ritual by which Aaron would enter into the most holy place of the tabernacle once every year. Personally, I find the layout of the chapter confusing, as there are two groups of sacrifices going on, Aaron making a sin and burnt offering for himself, and Aaron making a sin and burnt offering for the congregation. The verses weave back and forth between the two, and I have decided to instead reorganize the verses according to their subject. Thus, today I will cover all the verses specifically about Aaron’s sin offering, then over the next two days all of the verses about the congregation’s sin offering, and then the next day all the verses for both burnt offerings. Also, I will review the basic facts first, then consider the symbolic meanings more in depth at the end of the chapter. Hopefully I won’t just make things more confusing than they already were!
One thing that stands out immediately about this chapter is that it is describing a supremely sacred event, which required specialized ritual aspects seen nowhere else in God’s law, starting with the dual sacrifices, one set being for Aaron and the other for the congregation. Also unique is that Aaron is purifying himself in preparation for an annual visit with the Lord. Also, that a blanket atonement is being performed over the entire congregation for any sins that had been committed throughout the year. The purpose of this special event was to bring God, Aaron, and the people all into simultaneous alignment. It was the Day of Atonement.
And so, we first hear of Aaron’s sin offering, which starts off normally enough, but then in verse 14 it goes into specialized territory when Aaron uses the blood of the offering to sprinkle the mercy seat seven times. The mercy seat is, of course, the lid of the Ark of the Covenant, within the most holy place of the tabernacle. The place that was forbidden for anyone to enter except at this one time. We have heard of blood being sprinkled around the sacrificial altar for burnt and trespass offerings, and blood sprinkled on a person for the consecration offerings, but this is the first time we hear of an offering’s blood being used on the mercy seat.
But Aaron could not just enter into the most holy place. Verses 12-13 explain to us that in order to preserve his life in such a holy place, Aaron must first use coals from the altar of sacrifice to burn incense, enough to produce a cloud that would cover the mercy seat, creating a barrier between him and the direct dwelling place of the Lord. It does not explain this process entirely, but perhaps Aaron would hold the curtain open to let the incense cloud travel in first, and then proceed only when it was safe to do so.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 16:1-2
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord, and died;
2 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
The opening of this chapter references back to the priestly disobedience of Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, who were consumed in fire by the Lord for their sin. This memory is invoked to remind Aaron of the strictness of his calling, particularly in matters of “the holy place,” which is the inner chamber of the tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant resides. Aaron is informed, on pain of death, that he must never come into that place outside of the very specific conditions that God will describe in the rest of this chapter. And none of the other priests could ever venture into that place. Only the High Priest, and only once a year, as we will soon read.
The reason is given in verse 2. The Lord, Himself, will dwell in a cloud upon the mercy seat, which is the lid of the Ark of the Covenant. His presence and His glory are wonderful and terrible, consuming like a flame any who are not prepared beforehand.
There is in these verses an example of the principle of leadership. With leadership responsibility there comes great obligation, great consequence for failure, and also great privilege. Aaron will officiate as the highest authority in bearing the sins of the people, he is given the instructions of how to do so under pain of death, and he will be the only one allowed into the very chambers of the Lord. Obligation, consequence, and privilege.
The Problem of Evil- Boundaries on God
Getting an Education)
I had long been aware that I felt different from many people, Christians included, in the fact that I did not struggle with the terrible suffering in this world combined with the belief in a powerful and loving God. Frankly, I was glad that I didn’t see a paradox in this and assumed that the paradox wasn’t even real. I assumed that people were distressed by this conundrum for purely emotional reasons, which would certainly be understandable, just not justifiable by logic or reason.
And, as I learned in my study of the matter, that assumption of mine is true for many individuals out there. Many don’t understand the very argument that they use, don’t recognize that it only applies in some contexts and not in others. There are also those who see that the Problem of Evil is only an argument against a very specific conception of God and reality, and I am very grateful to them for expanding my horizons so I could see what that conception was.
Yesterday I shared about faiths that bypass the argument entirely by not holding to the presuppositions that it depends on. Today I wanted to conclude by exploring some of the thoughts that came up when I imagined how it would be to live as one of those Christians to whom those presuppositions do still apply.
What Does All-Powerful Mean?)
At the root of everything, it comes down to just what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful and that He is sovereign over all. In most conversations, I find that even people who believe in the strongest conceptions of God’s power, still assume that to some degree He imposes restrictions upon Himself. They might say that God has the power to slam Jupiter into the Sun, causing a sudden burst of heat and energy that would consume the Earth and eradicate all life in an instant…but He doesn’t, because He is checked by His goodness and compassion. The fact that God does not do something, is not evidence that He cannot do something. It can merely be a sign that His nature bounds itself. God must wield all power, but not at the expense of being all-benevolent.
And then other attributes can be applied to that. Such as logic and truth. These are principles that exist on the same plane of existence as Him, and many Christians would argue are a part of Him, and as such He would operate according to their principles. Just as God would not show His power in a way that contradicts His benevolence, He would not show it in a way that contradicts His logic. If He did, He would be uncoupling His own parts and cease to be Himself.
Thus, could the suffering in this world be a logical necessity, even under the hands of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God?
Is God still all-powerful if that power is bounded by His benevolence and His logic? Is He still all-benevolent if that benevolence is bounded by His justice and His logic?
And if God does need to balance all of these criteria with one another, then perhaps there is space to say that a world of suffering, and a species of man who become heroic by overcoming great opposition, is a logical necessity. In our own lives we know that victory is only a virtue in the face of genuine possible defeat, and maybe that isn’t just an illusion of our reality, but an eternal principle, as true as the principles of mathematics. Perhaps life is the way that it is, because it was the only way that it could be.
This may not answer every concern found in the Problem of Evil, but I think it does open the door to deeper conversation.
In Conclusion)
In my last post I showed how certain faiths do not hold the same presuppositions that the Problem of Evil argument depends on, and which explains why I never found it to be a conundrum. Today I explored the experience of one who did assume those presuppositions, and what arguments could still allow for the existence of both suffering and God.
This brings me to the end of this study, and I have certainly learned a lot through the process. I now understand where the strength of the Problem of Evil argument resides, what presuppositions it depends on, and what my responses to it are, both with and without sharing those presuppositions. It has been helpful for me, and I hope it can be helpful for you, too.
The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions
Gaining an Understanding)
In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.
As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.
But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.
The Presuppositions)
The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.
But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.
This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.
But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?
A Sensible Question)
With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.
But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.
Until You Love God
You may have learned to hate evil,
But you will still never know peace,
Until you learn to love God.
Only God Has Authority
The only one with the authority to dismantle your belief in God,
Is God, Himself.
What Really Matters
Often, that which we value most is not what we assume. The only way to know our true priorities is to observe what we compromise at the expense of what else.
Do we keep our belief in God’s commandments quiet when those around us oppose them? Then we value society more than God.
Do we pursue early sexual gratification, even though we know it will make us unattractive to a potential spouse? Then we value pleasure more than family.
Do we ignore our neighbor asking for help loading their truck so that we can have a nice evening to ourselves? Then we value self more than community.
And through it all, we may tell ourselves that God, family, and community matter to us most, but our actions reveal the truth of the matter. They do not. Social acceptance, pleasure, and self are our true priorities. But the good news is, our priorities can be altered, we just have to make sacrifices. Choose the commandments, the abstinence, the community service, even when we do not want them. In time, the heart will change so that we do.
Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 10:3-7
3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.
5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.
6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled.
7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.
The loss of his sons must have been a terrible blow to Aaron, but wisely he accepted the Lord’s judgment and held his peace. The totality of God’s path is absolute. On the one hand, no one is forbidden from coming to Him, but also no one is excused from betraying Him. It does not matter our status, God’s laws apply just as much to the king as to the beggar, as much to the priest as to the pagan.
No doubt the weight of this reality rested on the minds of Aaron and his two surviving sons as Moses forbade them from performing the traditional rituals of mourning. It seems as though Nadab and Abihu’s betrayal took place sometime during the initiation process. The priests were staying in the sanctuary day and night for a full week, so there was plenty of opportunity for it to have occurred.
It was imperative that Aaron and his sons not abandon their purification process partway through. They were still acting in their divine office; they were still standing in as representatives of God, and it would not do for the representative of God to bewail the judgment of God. That would be contradictory.
Even so, Moses assured them that the people of Israel would mourn for them. Just as the priests must stand as representatives of God to the people, the people would stand as representatives of the brokenhearted men to God.
Aaron and his sons accepted their solemn duty, and “did according to the word of Moses.” Each of them would fulfill this initiation, commit themselves sincerely, and live out the rest of their lives without causing such a breach as Nadab and Abihu had done.
Spiritual Wanderings 